Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Doesn't exist is hard for me to agree with. Not what it seems, or not "Aiki" might be more like what I'm getting at. If we compare my athletic outline to "C" and "D". I might say that 2. is like "C" and 3. is like "D". But I'm not really sure to be honest.

I'm not really sure either, if only because I'm not sure how much we agree on the meaning of C and D.
I'd say that 3 is waza. I think D / aiki would be proto-waza, perhaps between 2 and 3? I think C / internal power would be 1 and 2.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I personally feel that "Aiki" is something much larger then a body skill. I think it is a way of understanding the mind, definition "B". I feel that the ability to understand the mind is something that Aiki is getting at, that we really don't see in other systems/methods of study. But that is simply my view point, it could certainly be wrong or short sighted. I'm open to other definitions, but those definitions should be logical.

My main problem with "C" is that no one is really explaining it, what are we talking about? If it's a body skill, what makes the phenomenon it produces different then modern athletic training? If it is the same idea as modern athletic training, then why would we have to learn it from a very limited group of people? There are lot's of great athletic coaches out there.

I'm unconvinced that modern athletic training is really the same idea as internal training. Yes it is also about training the body and training how to use it, like your number 1 and 2. But I think the training methods are different. It's only the same idea in a very general sense. For example, internal training involves the mind a lot, already in point 1.

Yes, the number of good teachers teaching in the west is small. It will probably grow, but it takes time. Apparently there never were many good teachers and it's probably harder to transmit than athletic training.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

People seem to be attached to this idea of unexplainable phenomenon. I don't yet see a need to believe anything that has been produced is unexplainable. But rather, is normal and widely available. If you can't explain something, investigate it. Talk about it openly, and let's hash it out. I am in the business (quite literally) of training myself and others in "Aiki". This is an important subject to me.

If we look at "C" and "D" who is our proof of something different then athletic training? We could make some historical guesses, but they are simply guesses, none of us were there, and stories tend to get bigger as time goes on. So we have to look at modern people who say they have "C" and/or "D" as far as I've seen, none of them have dominated any physical competitions, baffled scientists, or even presented something that I myself can't duplicate on some level. So naturally I believe that there is nothing more to "C" and "D" then athletic training can produce- except modern athletic training does a better job.

I understand your line of reasoning that you haven't personally encountered phenomena that cannot be explained by athletic training and therefore you see no reason to assume it exists. After all, believing every eyewitness account ever made means accepting UFOs and what have you.
On the other hand, only believing your personal experience means rejecting most of science. Where to draw the line is different for every person.

So I hope that one day the opportunity arises where you can get in physical contact with someone "vetted" and find out for yourself if your training produces something comparable (or better).